A HIGH COURT decision overturning a district judge's order compelling the DPP to make wide-ranging discovery of documents relating to the electronic prosecution of a speeding charge is expected to have a knock-on effect on the conduct of similar cases.
Judge Geoffrey Browne made the discovery order in September 2007 without holding a hearing into whether the 29 categories of documents sought were relevant, despite the DPP's request. He also made at least 10 similar orders in other cases and apparently intended to make such discovery standard in such cases, the DPP complained.
Mr Justice Bryan McMahon this week granted an appeal by the DPP against the discovery order granted to solicitors for a man charged with speeding at Aughamore, Mayo, on March 18th, 2006.
Judge Browne was not entitled to make the discovery order without first conducting a hearing into whether the documents were relevant, Mr Justice McMahon said. He returned the matter to the District Court for a relevancy hearing.
Mr Justice McMahon also rejected claims by the motorist's solicitor that there was a concerted effort by the State to conceal a "flawed procedure" regarding the electronic prosecution of speeding offences. He accepted the State's denial of claims that a prosecution of another speeding case - withdrawn by the DPP after Judge Browne ordered full disclosure - would have been a "test case" relating to electronic prosecution.
In the case before Mr Justice McMahon, 12 of the categories of documents related to the hand-held computer used by gardaí as an electronic notebook after stopping people for alleged speeding. Seventeen related to the central processing of fixed charge speeding notices issued based on motorists' data input by gardaí into the hand-held computer.
The documents sought included the computer operator's manual, copies of the software licence for the computer and the names of non-Garda personnel involved in the processing of data. The DPP argued the material sought was irrelevant and imposed an intolerable burden on Garda resources.
The solicitor for the motorist had argued that the procedure under which a garda input the motorist's data into a hand-held computer for the purpose of a speeding prosecution was "clearly flawed" and claimed persons in the highest positions in the Garda knew this. There was "a veil of secrecy" over the entire procedures being used by the Garda for the issuing of fixed-charge notices.
The DPP denied those claims and said the hand computer functioned as an electronic notebook into which gardaí entered relevant details about motorists which was then centrally processed, and summonses were issued.
Mr Justice McMahon said there was a constitutional obligation to disclose certain evidence when proceedings are summary in nature.
The District Court decided whether it was necessary in the interests of justice for an accused to be given relevant information pre-trial. The Supreme Court, in the Gary Doyle 1994 case, set out indicators for determining relevance. A basis for a discovery application must be clearly established.
It must be appreciated that justice was not just about the rights of the accused, the judge said. The public interest in the successful prosecution of cases must also be taken into account and, where it was intended for justice to be administered simply and speedily, inordinate expense must be avoided. Common sense and proportionality must be considered.
Applying those principles, Mr Justice McMahon said the motorist had not laid the factual basis for his wide-ranging discovery application. He had not, for example, claimed that he was not driving in excess of the speed limit, and also failed to show he would receive an unfair trial without the disclosure.
The right to disclosure was limited to relevant material but Judge Browne had refused to consider the DPP's request for a hearing on relevancy, although it would be difficult to appreciate the relevancy of many of the documents sought without expert evidence or further explanation. The discovery order paid no regard to the relevant common sense parameters, especially as some of it may be subject to a confidentiality clause with computer manufacturers.
